[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 175 (Friday, September 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54527-54530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22890]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 98-147; FCC 00-297]


Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document invites further comment on a number of issues 
related to the obligation of incumbent LECs to provide collocation. The 
Second Further Notice responds to the decision of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in GTE Service 
Corp. v. FCC, by requesting comment on the meaning of ``necessary'' and 
``physical collocation.'' In addition, the document requests comment on 
whether an incumbent LEC must permit collocators to cross-connect with 
other collocators and on other collocation-related issues.

DATES: Written comments by the public on the proposed information 
collections are due October 12, 2000, and reply comments are due 
November 14, 2000. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collection(s) 
on or before November 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, 
Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to 
Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Kehoe, Special Counsel, or 
Julie Patterson, Attorney Advisor, Common Carrier Bureau, Policy and

[[Page 54528]]

Program Planning Division, 202-418-1580. Further information also may 
be obtained by calling the Common Carrier Bureau's TTY number: 202-418-
0484. For additional information concerning the information collections 
in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, contact Judy 
Boley at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-147, FCC 00-
297, adopted on August 9, 2000, and released August 10, 2000. This NPRM 
contains proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, the general 
public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the 
proposed information collections contained in this proceeding. The 
complete text of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 Twelfth 
Street, S.W. Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services 
(ITS), CY-B400, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Synopsis of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking responds to the 
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit in GTE Service Corp. v. FCC, 205 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 
2000) by requesting comment on the meaning of ``necessary'' and 
``physical collocation,'' as used in section 251(c)(6). In addition, 
the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-
147 asks whether an incumbent LEC must permit collocators to cross-
connect with other collocators; whether the Commission should require 
incumbent LECs to make physical collocation space available in 
increments smaller than the space necessary to accommodate a single 
rack or bay of equipment; whether the Commission should amend its 
collocation to facilitate line-sharing and subloop unbundling; and 
regarding collocation at remote incumbent LEC premises.
    2. In addition, the Second Further Notice requests comment on 
whether the Commission should specify an overall maximum collocation 
provisioning interval shorter than 90 calendar days or shorter 
intervals for particular types of collocation arrangements, such as 
cageless collocation, modifications to existing collocation 
arrangements, or collocation within remote incumbent LEC structures and 
whether the Commission should adopt national standards governing the 
period for which incumbent LECs and collocating carriers can reserve 
space for future use in incumbent LEC premises.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    3. This NPRM contains a proposed information collection. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection(s) contained in 
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as 
other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due November 
7, 2000. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden 
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Proposed Demographic Information and Notifications, Second 
FNPRM, CC Docket No. 98-147, and Fifth FNPRM, CC Docket No. 96-98.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New Collections.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 1400.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 2800 hours.
    Cost to Respondents: $0.
    Needs and Uses: Requesting carriers would use demographic and other 
information obtained from incumbent LECs to determine whether they wish 
to collocate at particular remote terminals.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

    4. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Advanced 
Services Order and NPRM (Notice) in CC Docket 98-147. The Commission 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including 
comment on the IRFA. We received no comments specifically directed 
toward the IRFA. In addition, we incorporated the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) into the Advanced Services First Report and 
Order and received no petitions for reconsideration specifically 
directed toward the FRFA. This Supplemental Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA) conforms to the RFA.

Need for and Objectives of This Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking

    5. This Second Further Notice continues our efforts to facilitate 
the development of competition in telecommunications services. In the 
Advanced Services First Report and Order, 63 FR 45133, August 24, 1998, 
we strengthened our collocation rules to reduce the costs and delays 
faced by competitors that seek to collocate equipment in incumbent LEC 
premises. While many aspects of those rules were affirmed on appellate 
review, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded certain aspects of those 
rules. In this Second Further Notice, we invite comment on what action 
we should take regarding the rules the D.C. Circuit vacated and 
remanded, and on other collocation related issues.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
of the FRFA

    6. In the IRFA, we stated that any rule changes would impose 
minimum burdens on small entities and solicited comments on 
alternatives to our proposed rules that would minimize the impact that 
might have on small entities. In the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA), we discussed the impact on small entities of the rules 
adopted in the Advanced Services First Report and Order. As noted 
above, we have received no comments or petitions specifically directed 
to the IRFA or the FRFA. In making the determinations reflected in the 
Order, however, we have considered the impact of our actions on small 
entities.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected 
by the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    7. In the IRFA to the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we adopted 
the analysis and definitions set forth in determining the small 
entities affected by this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
for purposes of this SFRFA. The RFA directs agencies to

[[Page 54529]]

provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of entities that will be affected by the rules. The RFA generally 
defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the term ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that 
are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small Business Act, a 
``small business concern'' is one that: (1) is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets 
any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). The SBA has defined a small business for Standard 
Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone) to be 
small entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees. We first 
discuss the number of small telephone companies falling within these 
SIC categories, then attempt to refine further those estimates to 
correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly 
used under our rules.
    8. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as 
the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the 
Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report, derived 
from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications Relay 
Service (TRS). According to data in the most recent report, there are 
4,144 interstate carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, LECs, 
wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, 
competitive access providers, operators services providers, pay 
telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of 
telephone exchange service, and resellers.
    9. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA 
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The 
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and determinations in 
other, non-RFA contexts.
    10. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The United States 
Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, 
there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as 
defined therein, for at least one year. These firms include a variety 
of different categories of carriers, including LECs, interexchange 
carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile 
service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, 
PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain 
that some of those 4,144 telephone service firms may not qualify as 
small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not 
``independently owned and operated.'' For example, a PCS provider that 
is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 
employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems 
reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 4,144 telephone 
service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small 
incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules that 
potentially could be adopted based upon this Second Further Notice.
    11. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. SBA has developed a 
definition of small entities for telephone communications companies 
other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that, 
there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one 
year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small 
business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one 
employing no more than 1,500 persons. All but 26 of the 2,231 non-
radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to 
have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those 
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 
non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or 
small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these 
carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at 
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline 
carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business 
concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there 
are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies 
other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the 
decisions and rules that could potentially result from this Second 
Further Notice.
    12. Local Exchange Carriers. The Commission has not developed a 
special size definition of small LECs or competitive LECs. The closest 
applicable definition for these types of carriers under SBA rules is, 
again, that used for telephone communications companies other than 
radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of 
information regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which 
we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in 
connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According 
to our most recent data, there are 1,348 incumbent LECs, 212 
competitive LECs, and 442 resellers. Although it seems certain that 
some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or 
have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate 
with greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify 
as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we 
estimate that there are no more than 1,348 small entity incumbent LECs, 
212 competitive LECs, and 442 resellers that may be affected by the 
decisions and rules that could result from this Second Further Notice.

Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and other 
Compliance Requirements

    13. In the Second Further Notice, we seek comment regarding rules 
recently vacated and remanded by the D.C. Circuit, as well as on other 
issues regarding collocation by incumbent LECs. We invite comment, for 
instance, on whether we should require incumbent LECs to make physical 
collocation space available in increments smaller than the space 
necessary to accommodate a single rack or bay of equipment. We request 
comment on issues relating to collocation at remote incumbent LEC 
premises, and on whether we should change our collocation rules to 
facilitate line sharing and subloop unbundling. We ask whether we 
should specify an overall maximum collocation provisioning interval 
shorter than 90 calendar days or shorter intervals for particular types 
of collocation arrangements, such as cageless collocation, 
modifications to existing collocation arrangements, or collocation 
within remote incumbent LEC structures. We also ask whether we should 
adopt national standards governing the period for which incumbent LECs 
and collocating carriers can reserve space for future use in incumbent 
LEC premises. As described, the measures under consideration in

[[Page 54530]]

this Second Further Notice may, if adopted, result in additional 
reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements for 
telecommunications carriers, including small entities.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    14. In this Second Further Notice, we seek to develop a record 
sufficient to adequately address issues related to developing long-term 
policies related to collocation. In addressing these issues, we seek to 
ensure that competing providers, including small entity carriers, 
obtain access to inputs necessary to the provision of advanced 
services. We believe that the issues on which we invite comment would 
impose minimal burdens on small entities, including both 
telecommunications carriers that request collocation and the incumbent 
LECs that, under section 251 of the Communications Act, must provide 
collocation to requesting carriers. As indicated above, both groups of 
carriers include entities that, for purposes of this SIRFA, are 
classified as small entities. In framing the issues in this Second 
Further Notice, we have sought to develop a record on the potential 
impact our proposed rules could have upon small entities. We thus ask 
that commenters propose measures to avoid significant economic impact 
on small business entities.

Procedural Matters

    15. Pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r), that the Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-147 and the Fifth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-98 (Published 
elsewhere in this issue) Are Adopted.
    16. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, Shall Send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration 
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-
147 and this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket 
No., including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-22890 Filed 9-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P